A Blog on Christianity, Human Law, and Public Policy. The blog of a former Dean and former Professor of Trinity International University's Trinity Law School (But of course the views expressed here are not necessarily those of the university). Visit my new blog at dwarvestotea.wordpress.com.

Monday, July 31, 2006

The linked article in the Guardian is on an English court's decision not to recognize the relationship of a lesbian couple "married" in Canada as a marriage under English law. There are a number of encouraging quotes from the opinion. The court also concludes the European Convention on Human Rights supports marriage between one man and one woman. The court says England has accommodated same sex relationships under a separate name and law, so it is not treating homosexual couples as inferior, just recognizing they have a different type of relationship.

Of course dignifying homosexual relationships in law is problematic just as it would be to license theft, murder, or polyamory. The court also takes the perilous step of basing the ruling, in part, on the opinion of the majority of people and nations. But at least the court recognized that marriage under the common law means a relationship of commitment between one man and one woman, that usually makes provision for raising children effectively with the influence of both a father and a mother. Other partnerships are not marriages, whatever they may be.

1 comment:

Mr McConnell,Since the legal definition of "License" is, "Permission to do that which would, otherwise, be illegal," I fail to see what the legal fuss is about. The Brits have done something the Yanks have failed to do. They have forthrightly recognized their own law, common or otherwise. Obviously, homosexuality is illegal under Common Law, English or American. In addition, that same Common Law sets forth the parameters of Marriage. The Brits recognize this and thus recognize the need to resort to a more pliable and pragmatic body of law, ie. Roman Law.American Jurisprudence, many times fails to plead Common Law. We rely almost exclusively on our Roman Legal Heritage, which is much more malleable. In the context of Marriage and Homosexuality, that is exactly what has happened and, as President Bush has informed us, that is exactly what will happen in this country.

Ultimately, it matters not if Common Law is chosen as the weapon of choice for this issue. Contray to what many believe, the Common Law is not as rock solid and immutable as they think. It has a history of ebb and flow, just like the Roman Catholics who had a major part in forming it. It is adaptable, also.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

About Me

As a professor at Trinity Law School, I teach our legal history class, a course called Legal Institutions and Values. The class is an overview of legal history from creation to the American Revolution. My goal is to champion a Biblical view of human law and government.